Ford Forums is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. We discuss all Ford models on the forum. Registered Users do not see the above ads. Please Register - It's Free!
John Horner wrote:
> Al Bundy wrote:
> > Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >
> > "Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......."
> >
> > Is that so?
> > Unfortunately Nomen, you are a poser, just cutting and pasting things
> > you read. That leaves you making error after error in how things are or
> > could be.
> >
>
>
> Well Mr. Bundy, I am afraid that Nomen is correct, at least for
> permanent magnet electric motors. Have a look at:
>
> http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~j...-71.html#54931
>
> John
Well John, you are wrong because you took a blanket statement and
qualified it to suit your answer. Again, nice pasting job though.
Al Bundy wrote:
> John Horner wrote:
>
>>Al Bundy wrote:
>>
>>>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>
>>>"Electric motors develop maximum torque at zero rpm......."
>>>
>>>Is that so?
>>>Unfortunately Nomen, you are a poser, just cutting and pasting things
>>>you read. That leaves you making error after error in how things are or
>>>could be.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well Mr. Bundy, I am afraid that Nomen is correct, at least for
>>permanent magnet electric motors. Have a look at:
>>
>>http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~j...-71.html#54931
>>
>>John
>
>
> Well John, you are wrong because you took a blanket statement and
> qualified it to suit your answer. Again, nice pasting job though.
>
There are a LOT of varibles in electric motor design that can effect at
what RPM peak effort is achieved. Generally though with traction type
motors used to power electric cars and such, they achive maximum torque
at zero or very low RPMs to get the load moving.
>
> Anything developed for, or primarily intended for sale to the DOD is
> going to be so overpriced due to contractor spoilage as to not be
> worth considering.
>
>
Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding..
total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it!
Good Catch!
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
NASA developed many new technologies that have passed on to the public.
Do a Google search, you will be impressed.
Progress is never a waste of money.
"Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
news:Xns975463E9AA07Cpettyfogery@207.115.17.102...
> "Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Anything developed for, or primarily intended for sale to the DOD is
>> going to be so overpriced due to contractor spoilage as to not be
>> worth considering.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding..
> total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it!
>
> Good Catch!
>
> --
> Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
> you pay..DEAL with it!
>> Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding..
>> total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it!
>>
>> Good Catch!
>
> What about velcro ? High impact plastic ? Fuel Cells ? GPS ?
> Satellite TV and Radio ?
>
> Lynn
Heh.. gee... never THOUGHT of that!!1
;)
There's more, btw.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding..
>>total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it!
>>
>>Good Catch!
>
>
> What about velcro ? High impact plastic ? Fuel Cells ? GPS ?
> Satellite TV and Radio ?
>
> Lynn
>
>
Actually the DOD was behind the GPS program at the start. NASA provided
the taxi for it.
More importantly what about the need to make things small that let to
better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as eye surgery,
organ surgery and transplants. As well as the ability to reattach severed
limbs etc?
mike hunt
"TheSnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:9VbBf.5314$vU2.643@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>Yeah.... like all that technology developed under NASA/ Space funding..
>>>total waste of money, considering we never saw any of it!
>>>
>>>Good Catch!
>>
>>
>> What about velcro ? High impact plastic ? Fuel Cells ? GPS ?
>> Satellite TV and Radio ?
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually the DOD was behind the GPS program at the start. NASA provided
> the taxi for it.
>
> --
>
> -----------------
> www.thesnoman.com
Mike Hunter wrote:
> More importantly what about the need to make things small that let to
> better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as eye surgery,
> organ surgery and transplants. As well as the ability to reattach severed
> limbs etc?
>
Most of the things you mention had a tangential relationship to the
space program. It's true the space program speeded up many of those
things, but not that we would not have any of it without them. And
perhaps the pace of progress would have limited some of the regress we
have to face too, like offshoring of jobs, elimination of repair jobs,
and cheapening of all manner of products. It goes both ways.
Once a company has derived most of its income from NASA or the Air
Force it is permanently spoiled and will never want to work again for a
living. You'd have to fire or kill all of the executives and most of
the management to get them to pursue gainful market endeavors at
reasonable per-piece profit levels.
"Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138059938.931137.202300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> More importantly what about the need to make things small that let to
>> better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as eye
>> surgery,
>> organ surgery and transplants. As well as the ability to reattach
>> severed
>> limbs etc?
>>
>
>
> Most of the things you mention had a tangential relationship to the
> space program. It's true the space program speeded up many of those
> things, but not that we would not have any of it without them. And
> perhaps the pace of progress would have limited some of the regress we
> have to face too, like offshoring of jobs, elimination of repair jobs,
> and cheapening of all manner of products. It goes both ways.
The Space Program's necessity of the materials, mapping, weather forcasting,
etc. promted their development and the speed of their developement. The
things mentioned may not be here today if it had not been for the Space
Program. True, your point of jobs, it does go both ways, but , a basic
economics class dictates if one has the money and needs labor, and one has a
labor pool, but needs the money, a relationship will develope that will
benefit both. Nothing new, been going on for thousands of years.
> Once a company has derived most of its income from NASA or the Air
> Force it is permanently spoiled and will never want to work again for a
> living. You'd have to fire or kill all of the executives and most of
> the management to get them to pursue gainful market endeavors at
> reasonable per-piece profit levels.
As long as the contractor is delivering their products within the
contractual requirements of NASA and the Air Force, they are within a
gainfull market.
Linear Mode
